2183 Lewd Trolls.

Patreon
Subscribestar
Comic Vote
Reddit
Wiki
Twitter @betweenfailures

The real comic that Edward is referencing isn’t really all that lewd. It’s the fanbase that is. He’s mixing them together somewhat unfairly. I’ll probably change the name to something fictional because it’s a lot easier down the road if I find out the creator of the actual comic hates me for some reason. People often say that it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, & sometimes that is true, but in some cases I’ve found that it’s much easier to just fictionalize your subject & take the other party out of the equation. Right now especially I am not getting along with the greater artistic “community”. I quotate community because I’ve never felt like there was a community. It’s more like every other aspect of life. A series of gatekeepers with power use whoever they like and shun whoever isn’t useful to them. In the end the only thing that matter is power; naked, merciless, force. I’ve always been too even minded to get along with most other artists. Not fitting in even with the rejects has a long term effect on how you experience the world. I’m distrustful & paranoid because you can only survive getting backstabbed so many times. It’s a double damage bonus if undetected! For the most part I’m a non entity in the webcomic “community”. People don’t know who I am in spite of my success. Which is probably for the best, particularly in the now. Sometimes it’s better to keep your head down & work toward your goals unnoticed, so no one thinks to get in your way.

70 Comments

I am on Nina’s side xD telling someone that reading specific content will only improve libido is hardly dissuading xD I am curious as to what the comic is now, even though its explained to not really be lewd xD wonder if I’ve read it, I’ve read so many webcomics at this point. (Between Failures is that top quality content though, never doubt xD)

It’s Homestuck.
But it’s unusual that Edward would act like he’s never read it when he has a HS hero of mind hooodie he wears all the time.

Hmm… Ed couldn’t possibly be referring to a comic that rhymes with “RomeStruck,” could he?

Did you mean BoneTruck?

No, stupid. Obviously they are referring to ConePuck.

Wrong, ding dong. OBVIOUSLY, they are talking about FoamDuck.

You’re joking, right? Everyone knows GnomeChuck.

ChromeBuck?

Guess that means it’s not one I read as I’m not getting the reference. Oh well, no great loss.

The problem is, no matter what fantasy race you switch that to, there’s a webcomic for it. Lewd goblins? Yeah. Lewd elves? Yeah. The problem is that lewd webcomics are their own genre.

Heh, heh! Yeah.
I guess there’s always gonna be someone to take a genre, or a fiction series, + make lewd stories about it.

Probably, out there, someone has written lewd fanfic about the 1960s show, Gillian’s Island [R].
Man. What a fresh nightmare that is! :D

Assuming you meant Gilligan, that’s not a stretch. The show already 1/2 way on it’s own with Mary and Ginger and Mrs Thurston floating about.

If you meant Gillian’s Island… well, I’m pretty sure that’s the name of the porn parody, so it doesn’t need fanfic, because it IS the fapfic.

Eep, yep, I mean Gilligan.
Probably the thought of swimming, wet, rowdy, sailor boys got me distracted.
OOOh! Blue shirted sailor! Wanna dive into [my] ocean,…Skipper boy?
:D

I’ve searched, and found two books called Gillian’s Island. As far as I can tell without buying them, neither seems to be a porn parody. Is your search fu perhaps better than mine? Or is it preinternet fanfic?

I’ll never get tired of Nina’s flirting with Ed. ?

I too cannot get tired during certain experiences, like running, swimming, sky diving, drinking coffee, drinking red bull, inserting various medicinal substances into my body, or getting the opportunity to squee at Nina-Tedd scenes.

Mmmmmmmmm, coffee. Mmm, Nina.
Ooooo, Nina with coffee flavored kisses.
Never mind.

Someone help me here; if Reggie is Thomas’ foil, what is Ed to Thomas?
Not inverse… converse?

Their relationships don’t boil down that simply.

Many people convince themselves that social chemistry is something complex and fascinating, but in truth, it really isn’t. You are going to love, like, tolerate, and/or hate people to various degrees for various subjective reasons. Objective reasoning is quite rare in regards to interpersonal relationships.

I’ve noticed in various “communities” that it is smooth when you march in lockstep with everyone else. The more you stray from the group norm, the more criticism you get. This is true even in groups that, at least superficially, support experimentation. This seems to happen in some forums more than others. FaceBook is particularly vile in this regard.At least there is a threshold in most groups where you cross into the “don’t mind him, he’s just weird” zone where they look at you like you are the guy who draws pictures with his own feces.

Uhm, Jackie? Very sorry to burst that bubble here. I can see why you might think that, it’s the fasionable thing to believe, but in the end it’s not true. There’s more to life than just naked power.

The thing about communities is that if you don’t like theirs you could easily start your own. Or choose to simply not be part of theirs. Both of which you more or less did. Or did you somehow force your readers to get in here and read this?

Yeah, Jackie says a lot I don’t agree with, but this blog post is outright worrying. This is the kind of self-destructive logic that leads to the worst parts of 4chan. I hope Jackie is seeing or can see a counselor/therapist to help him work through this.

Since Jackie’s conclusion was “keep your head down & work toward your goals”, I’m not sure what’s worrying. Yes, there is more to life than power, except for those people for whom that is not true. Maybe you haven’t crossed paths with one, but for those of us who have, it’s not a fun experience.

Via annecdote, I’ve been told that there are (or were) two main communities in the Vancouver film scene. One community is full if cooperative people who want to see each other succeed, and they’ll pass along work to friends and acquantances to help each other out for nothing or just thanks. The other group is full of the kind of power hungry spitefull pit vipers that jocky and position to be able to ‘get’ something, and don’t really care what happens to others in the process. Pity those who try to get into film in Van and only meet the latter group. Those new people tend to get chewed up and spit out and walk away never knowing of the first community. Then there are those who start with the first group, but are of the personality type of the second group. They typically only work a small number of times with the first crew, then are guided towards work with the second group where they can still thrive. This keeps them employed, but removes their destructive behaviour from the efforts of the first group. Lucky are those that find and mesh with the first group, as it’s a super positive, supportive and successful group. Sorrow for those who actually mesh with the second group, as it’s a pretty dark world view to live with day in and day out.

Jackie’s rant is easily the sort of thing anybody on the out’s with a group (for any reason) would say. But I’m inclined to beleive Jackie had an experience with a bad group and rightfully feels ostracized. I read a lot of comics (and their blogs), and most artists come across as really cool fun loving people, but the are a few that definitely give off the vibe that they are power hungry. The fact that there have been some rather open shots fired by some artists’ blogs is testament to that. That some comics collectives have formed also demonstrates that comic creation communities exist: Blank label, Blind Ferret, the PA juggernought. I can’t speak on those named or others, but where power gets centralized, there ARE those who will seek it out to control it, even if they themselves don’t know what to do with it. It is literally, actually, Machiavellian. He wrote a book on it, Il Principe (The Prince) and it is regarded well enough that his name became synonymous with the behaviour of people who seek power.

Some people can be happy with success, others just can’t be happy unless they’re making someone else miserable.

Personally I like “The Ruler” better as translation of “Il Principe”. The kind of utterly ruthless powerseeking Machiavelli got his name attached to isn’t very healthy, certainly not all the time. It’s even implied in the book (if you squint a bit) with the part where he says that keeping a country that was easy to get is hard, but keeping a country that was hard to get is easy. More practically: You can’t really terrorize all the people all the time, nor would it be a fruitfuil endeavour if you could. Most of us have lives to live and we perforce hope that leaving the ruling to the rulers will at least see the rulers leave us alone most of the time. A point often lost on those who seek power for its own sake.

My experience with webcomics is that a lot of the artists are of a liberal arts-type slant, as in a tad artsy-fartsy and bleeding heart idealistic, maybe not with both feet entirely firm on the ground. And it’s the liberal arts that’s currently being ruled by ideas collectively called “social justice” but that in practice mean one thing and one thing only: It’s all about power. Moreover, specific people (are assumed to) have it by birthright and everyone else doesn’t so the latter are justified in villifying the former. (As someone who is supposed to have it by birthright but not so much at all in practice, I somehow fail to buy into those ideas. The fault must obviously be mine.) How much webcomic artists buy into those ideas can be gauged in various ways. Sometimes it’s the introduction of “token” people, possibly the entire cast, perhaps soapboxing about token issues down to forsaking any kind of story in the webcomic, sometimes it’s in the author rants. It’s all about who can be most pathetic and victimised and/or who can stand up for the most far-fetched theoretical imagined slights. Real lot improvement for real people isn’t in the cards. But that’s alright, because it wasn’t about the downtrodden in the first place. It’s about looking at the world in terms of power, only.

And if they’ve drank enough of that kool-aid they won’t want to talk about it. Discussion is bigotry and disagreement is hate, and to dare either is to get “canceled” or “deplatformed”. Because there is only one truth, theirs, and everything else is therefore heresy.

So I’d say that a number of artists might not even be power hungry themselves, they just bought into the narrative and it brings out the worst in them. Not for their own sake, so they’ll tell everyone, oh no, it’s for the downtrodden. Except that’s not what the narrative is really about. Funnily enough.

People who deep down believe that them attaining success necessarily must mean everyone else must therefore lose, and such people do exist, notwithstanding.

I can’t quite tell if you’re rather conservative and about two sentences away from complaining about liberal snowflakes, or if you lean liberal but are moderate enough to feel alienated by the more extreme liberal end of the spectrum, ie the loud bit. Either way, let me just say that there is a large chunk of the “social justice” spectrum that is not unreasonable or incapable of healthy discussion and debate. And most of the people who get outraged over every little thing are overcompensating to try to convince people that they aren’t at all biased or bigoted. Which is silly, because we pretty much all wind up with prepackaged biases just by virtue of how we grew up.

Also, if your comments on “people assumed to have power by birthright” is referring to the concept of white privilege, that’s a pretty common misunderstanding amongst people on both sides of the political spectrum. It’s not about being given anything, it’s not about whether or not you have status or struggles, obviously white people are just as capable as anyone else of being impoverished and having difficulties. It’s about what a white person *doesn’t* have to deal with, the obstacles put in place by racist systems. It’s a lack of specific obstacles, not a benefits package.

Just thought I would attempt to clarify, feel free to ignore if you’re on the more “damn liberal snowflakes and their feelings” side of the equation.

I wrote a reply and found that it had turned into several pages of soapboxing. Let me summarize instead.

Where I am from those terms don’t mean what you think they mean, and my political opinions do not even align very closely with any of the dozen or so national political parties we have. I do disagree that our shared society should be some people’s safe space.

If “white silence is violence”, then “socially just silence” is what, not at least complicit? So I don’t buy your argument. Nor do I buy into that slogan. I do see a bunch of activists actively shutting down any and all voices that don’t kow-tow to them. And I think that is unacceptable, regardless of what they have to say. I don’t see those silent masses speak up in favour of the shouted-down, to at least hear what they have to say. That is not very socially just at all.

And however you’d like to spin what “white privilege” is supposed to mean, I think throwing such things in any white face you see is not useful on many levels.

I do support equal opportunity and I have reason to believe that, by and large, at least in Europe, we have achieved that. This doesn’t mean there are no social differences, but it does mean that there are no undue restrictions on you applying yourself.

So “systemic racism” doesn’t really exist here, or if it does it tends to be “positive discrimination”; certain non-write groups do get preferential treatment, taxpayer’s money, and so on, even if you’re not allowed to say so. We also have a required quota of females in large companies’ boards of directors now.

Assuming for the sake of argument that such “systemic racism” does exist in the US, it’s curious to see that we get the exact same slogans and the exact same complaints from these “activists” over here. There’s no discernible difference in the accusations.

That, and other curiosities, tell me that the movement is not about the shouted messages. It’s about something else. It starts to make sense is if you look at the founders of “BLM”. They’re trying to “tear down state structures”, like defunding the police, and other such wholesome activities. Tearing down statues is an attempt to make history vanish. They themselves say they’re “trained Marxists”. Go look it up, they did say that.

IOW, the message isn’t important. The goal of revolution is. Or at very least, that of projecting power. In that sense they’ve been already wildly successful. But then again, like with any extortioner, giving them what they say they want won’t satisfy. They’ve gotten a taste of power and now want even more.

So I think your silent masses should think long and hard about whether to stay silent and if not, then what to say.

Wow that whole rant has literally almost nothing to do with what I said. Like, it’s almost impressive how little of my comment you actually responded to in order to have an excuse to have your little soapbox moment.

I’m not sure who the hell you’re talking about being silent. Me? I’m not American, first of all, secondly, I’m clearly not being silent about anything, and thirdly, just because racism isn’t as blatantly violent in Europe as it is in the US doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Though, I will grant you, that it’s much more an issue of classism than racism in most places in Europe.

I was trying to be chill and nice before, but I’m not interested in getting into a debate with someone who clearly just wants to stand on their soapbox and yell, rather than listen and try to understand where people are coming from. You sound like a child putting their hands over their ears, shouting so that you can’t hear when people tell you something you don’t want to hear.

So maybe this silence you’re complaining about is just you not listening. Maybe you need a good long think about why someone talking about something with absolutely no malice or accusation makes you so damn defensive.

Oh, nice deflection. I was being a bit jabby, but it wasn’t about you personally, it was about the “large chunk of the “social justice” spectrum that is not unreasonable or incapable of healthy discussion and debate”, that you brought up. I say that part of the movement probably should speak up a bit louder because the other part is drowning out the reason and the debate. Okay, you got me, I could’ve condensed a bit more.

In the meantime, I’m really quite done with “social justice” including its various offshoots, with reason given. I’ve heard their case and I disagree with… well, most of their claims, but foremost their way of presenting them. This is my choice. They want their case addressed, present it better. Instead, I see the movement resort to force. And that I don’t condone.

If that makes you search for flaws in my character (as you’re doing) to have an excuse to blame me for you not wanting to talk to me any longer (as you’re also doing), well, that’s not really honest but I can’t stop you. Taking your ire out on the person instead of the issues is part and parcel of “social justice”. This actually goes back to its parent idea, that of “critical theory”, which consists entirely of finding flaws and criticizing them, in anything you want to attack.

So I don’t think you’re entirely free of malice, even if you think you are, for your malice is in the message. And if someone disagrees with you, you resort to attacking the disagreer’s person. But again, it’s not about you, it’s about the movement, and that thing as a whole is not free of malice or accusations at all. It consists enitrely of those two, for I see them do and speak nothing else.

It’s never “leave us room so we can be”, it’s always “you must kow-tow and fulful our every demand”. This is no basis for cooperation or coexisting in society.

I didn’t start getting malicious until you started ranting, and call it whatever you like, dude, but it was a rant and most of it was just eyeroll worthy. There are plenty of people who will talk to you about their experiences, who will present their case in exactly the way you are talking about and if you haven’t seen or heard those statements, then you really must be going out of your way to avoid them. I don’t vibe with willful ignorance for the sake of shutting people down. You don’t like violence and force? Maybe people wouldn’t resort to them if they had been listened to in the first place. But so many people have made your same excuse of waiting for the “correctly presented” argument, and no matter how reasonable someone is in presenting their case, it’s somehow never quite up to standard. What you call kowtowing, I call compromise. Just because someone is used to being entitled to something doesn’t mean it belongs to them. Equality sometimes means that the people who have been taking more than their fair share might have to give some things up.

Now, I’m not interested in clogging up Jackie’s comments any further, and honestly I’m not interested in debating with someone who is only interested in “winning” the argument, as opposed to considering various sides of an issue.

Mildly surprised a google of ‘lewd trolls’ doesn’t bring up the comic.
Anyway, yeah, comic itself wasn’t very lewd, but the fanbase, oy… gave them an interesting romance mechanic and a lot of shipping possibilities, and just sorta went wild. Then threw in a multi-world set so any fanfic could potentially be cannon… got real weird real fast.

I’m honestly surprised no-one mentioned Edward’s presto change-o fast shirt swap. blue to red in one panel!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.